Whats faster AMD 64 3700+ or 3800+?

[dguy6789]

So im going to get one of these 2 cpus.

here are their specs


Athlon 64 3700+ 1MB L2 cache, 2.4Ghz, socket 754

Athlon 64 3800+ 512K L2 cache, 2.4Ghz, socket 939



My question is, how could a cpu with half the cache be 100Mhz faster? Is socket 939 that much faster? I have heard that with socket 939, amd now beats intel in encoding, is that socket specific or what? Which should i get? The 3800 is over 100 bucks more expensive.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

The fact that is has half the cache actually makes it easier to go faster mhz, however if performance is what you are looking for, the extra cache will come in handy, especially in Doom 3

 

[dguy6789]

Im not going to be overclocking this rig. So the 3700+ is faster?

 

[Tiamat]

Im not an expert, but id say marginally faster. You might get 2frames faster. If you already are getting 40+fps then its not worth it, and 939 seems to be more futureproof. If, however, your GPU is only allowing you around 30fps, you might need the extra "boost" to keep it above 30.

 

[clarkey01]

a biger cache makes it harder to overclock, or so i'v been told.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: Tiamat
Im not an expert, but id say marginally faster. You might get 2frames faster. If you already are getting 40+fps then its not worth it, and 939 seems to be more futureproof. If, however, your GPU is only allowing you around 30fps, you might need the extra "boost" to keep it above 30.

Im gonna get a 6800 Ultra, so no problems there, the 939 one also has dual channel, which after a few reviews ive looked at, the 3500+ is faster then the 3400+ and they both have same clock speeds and the 3500+ has half the l2 cache, but is dual channel.

 

[glugglug]

939 is more future proof -- when the dual core chips come out, there probably won't be any for socket 754.

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: glugglug
939 is more future proof -- when the dual core chips come out, there probably won't be any for socket 754.

well, the dual cored athlon fx's will be put on the socket 900 boards, but i'm not sure about the dually opterons. i'm sure it will be socket 900 also.

 

[Mik3y]

and yes, the 3800 is faster. cache doesnt mean much for amd, since their architecture composes of short pipelines. the extra cache is a waste of money when the socket itself gives the cpu a 100MHz-like increase in performance, which makes up for mroe then that. it even beats intel is video editing, whcih of whom relies ont the large amount of cache for better encoding and decoding. and yes, it is socket specficit towards amd for that accomplishment. i would rather recommend you get the 3500+ and overclock it to 3800+ or higher, since they both overclock to about the same speed. the current core being used cant go much higher then beyong 4000+ i hear, so there is a limit to them.

 

[bwanaaa]

which is the better overclocker?

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: Mik3y

Originally posted by: glugglug
939 is more future proof -- when the dual core chips come out, there probably won't be any for socket 754.

well, the dual cored athlon fx's will be put on the socket 900 boards, but i'm not sure about the dually opterons. i'm sure it will be socket 900 also.

Hector Ruiz (CEO of AMD) specifically said the dual core Opterons will be compatible with current Opteron motherboards. I don't see any reason why the dual core fx chips won't go in current fx mobos. The reason for another new socket would be to differentiate between boards for DDR chips and DDR-2 chips.

 

[jdogg707]

I would get the 3800+ for the future proofing, dual channel memory does slightly offset the lack of cache, and coupled with a nForce3 250 Ultra chipset they seem to perform extremely well!

 

[clarkey01]

whats the limist of 0.13 nm with the newcastle core ? clockspeed ?

becaues the FX-55 is 2.6 Ghz on a .13 micron process.

 

[Mik3y]

they will both overclock to about the same speeds. they are the same cores. the only reason why the 3800+ is faster is because of the motherboard. 3700+ plus socket 939 board = 3800+. in a matter of ghz, they have the same clock speed, so even if you can overclcok them both to 2.5 or 2.6Ghz, the 3800+ will be the better performer in raw speed and power, not clock speed. technially, clock to clock speed, the cpu on socket 939 is faster then teh cpu on socket 754.

 

[StealthElephant]

Originally posted by: Mik3y
technially, clock to clock speed, the cpu on socket 939 is faster then teh cpu on socket 754.

Significantly faster or just faster?

 

[Mik3y]

well, faster in general, because it runs at amd's name speed of 100+ faster and it performs far better in encoding and decoding and everything else then the amd for socket 754.

 

[jdogg707]

There is a beautiful thing called research, it is what one does when they do not know the answer to something. There are a few good reviews of both processors out on the web. Here are some links:

Athlon 64 3800+/3500+ - Anandtech

Athlon 3700+ - AMD Review (Not the best Review)

Athlon 64 3700+ - Extreme Tech (Good Comparison between 3700+ and 3800+)

Hope that helps. Five minutes and one google search.

 

[Shimmishim]

3700+/3800+ are so close in performance....

and since they are almost equally priced, i'd have to say go with the skt 939 since you won't be overclocking

 

[dguy6789]

I was thinkin this though, if i got the 3700+ i could put it in a shuttle xpc and also have 2GB of ram instead of 1Gb due to the money saved on the cpu, case psu ect....

 

[alexXx]

then do it.

 

[Avalon]

Do you need 2gb of RAM? There isn't even a whole lot of use for 1gb today.